Interdependence of entrepreneurial ecosystem elements
| Main Arguments | Focus* | Main Findings | Methodology | Selected Empirical Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual actors can increase connectivity and provide required resources (sometimes acting beyond their expected realm, particularly in less developed ecosystems) | Support organizations | Four types of accelerator expertise—connection, development, coordination, and selection—combined lead to higher commitment among stakeholders to the ecosystem, validation through faster experimentation and ecosystem additionality. | Qualitative: 54 interviews, secondary data | Goswami et al. (2018) |
| Intermediary organizations in entrepreneurial ecosystems play a significant role in orchestrating collaborations beyond their regular realm. | Qualitative: case study (38 semi-structured interviews) | Hernández-Chea et al. (2021) | ||
| Incubators do not fundamentally address unfavorable institutions and only provide “symptomatic” solutions, therefore new “systemic” incubators are needed. | Qualitative: multiple case study (281 semi-structured interviews) | Van Weele et al. (2018) | ||
| Through an open innovation approach, accelerators can support the connectedness within and beyond the ecosystem and increase the resources available within the ecosystem. | Qualitative: 19 semi-structured interviews, secondary data | Pustovrh et al. (2020) | ||
| Multiple elements | Elements are related in a unique way for every ecosystem. | Qualitative: 20 interviews, survey to develop genealogical model (184 responses) | Neck et al. (2004) | |
| Actors need to interact and reinforce each other to support the entrepreneurial ecosystem. | Quantitative: general LMM (based on 911 innovative start-ups) | Noelia and Rosalia (2020) | ||
| Actors need to reach legitimacy across three complementary dimensions — institutional, cultural and relational — to make an impact within ecosystems. | Qualitative: longitudinal, in-depth case study | Lechner et al. (2022) | ||
| Role models and intermediary organizations are crucial for creating local buzz, promoting shared visions, and bridging cultural holes, which improves the flow of resources and information. | Quantitative: topic modelling (Twitter data) | Hannigan et al. (2021) | ||
| Learning and change in entrepreneurial ecosystems are endogenous processes that involve all actors, not just central ones. | Qualitative: embedded case design (38 interviews) | Korber et al. (2022) | ||
| In the absence of “traditional” factors, some actors (local “champions”) can create momentum and vitalise the entrepreneurial ecosystem. | Qualitative: case study (archival data) | Roundy (2019) | ||
| Dealmakers are essential for fostering connectivity and knowledge spillovers in entrepreneurial ecosystems. | Quantitative: social network analysis (Capital IQ database) | Pittz et al. (2019) | ||
| Government | Government sponsorship is an effective driver of ecosystem development beyond increasing individual recipient firms’ performance. | Qualitative: 51 semi-structured interviews | Motoyama and Knowlton (2016) | |
| Universities | Universities as hub institutions can support the development of ecosystems through the sequential development of boundary spanning, network building, and orchestrator functions, but rely on the development of complementary support structures. | Qualitative: case study (21 semi-structured interviews over 12 years, supplementary documents and information) | Schaeffer and Matt (2016) | |
| Learning, and universities pro-actively supporting this beyond their traditional remit, contribute to entrepreneurial ecosystem development. | Qualitative: case study (questionnaires, interviews, participatory and non-participatory observations, documentary evidence) | Pugh et al. (2019) | ||
| Universities adapt to the state of the ecosystem and contribute in multiple ways (often beyond their traditional remit of teaching and research). | Qualitative: multiple embedded case studies (participant observation, workshops, interviews, secondary data) | Wagner et al. (2021) | ||
| Anchor firms and institutions | Complex interdependencies mean that changes to anchor firms or institutions can alter the structure and resilience of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. | Qualitative: case study (two panel discussions and 13 in-depth semi-structured interviews) | Sohns and Wójcik (2020) | |
| Large/anchor firms can support ¢sub-)ecosystems through active engagement and governance without taking absolute control. | Qualitative: case study (43 semi-structured interviews, observations, document analysis) | Lo and Theodoraki (2021) | ||
| MNEs, through spin-outs and spillovers, can shape the technological trajectory and evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. | Mixed: longitudinal mixed-method case study | Ryan et al. (2021) | ||
| Start-up competitions can act as anchor events by fostering local connections, but do not draw in high-profile or external investors. | Qualitative: comparative case study (45 interviews) | Stolz (2022) | ||
| Key (institutional) actors within entrepreneurial ecosystems disproportionately contribute to the formation of networks, which are crucial to the iterative development of ecosystems. | Mixed: social network analysis (2232 Meetup events with 21,612 unique members), 23 semi-structured interviews | Rocha et al. (2021) | ||
| Entrepre-neurs | Family entrepreneurs’ embeddedness as a social fabric drives regional entrepreneurial ecosystem development. | Qualitative: exploratory case study (20 semi-structured interviews) | Bichler et al. (2022) | |
| Successful start-ups (“lighthouses”) play an important role in shaping the cultural, social and material attributes of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. | Qualitative: multiple case stud (40 interviews) | Tiba et al. (2020) | ||
| Lifestyle entrepreneurs often act as mediators between the different actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems, namely local entrepreneurs, public sector agencies, financial bodies, local community leaders. | Qualitative: multiple case stud (8 interviews, secondary material) | Cunha et al. (2020) | ||
| Entrepreneurs working in the sharing economy shape the sustainability of an entrepreneurial ecosystem through building a supportive environment, disrupting normative standards, and reframing the sustainability paradigm. | Qualitative: 31 in-depth interviews | Pankov et al. (2021) | ||
| Feedback and (non-linear) co-evolutionary dynamics between ecosystem elements (and the wider socio-economic context) | Multiple elements | Entrepreneurial culture as well as tailored stakeholder support and collaboration lead reinforce the perception of the ecosystem. | Quantitative: OLS regression (106 survey respondents) | Bischoff (2021) |
| Individual ecosystems are unique due to their co-evolving elements and historical, cultural, and institutional heritage. | Qualitative: Semi-structured interviews (23 and 122 at two points in time), archival data | Mack and Mayer (2016) | ||
| Ecosystem configurations can vary significantly, and new policies/investments should develop support among underlying social and cultural attributes. | Qualitative: case study (71 semi-structured interviews) | Spigel (2017a) | ||
| Different forms of proximity allow for development of entrepreneurial ecosystem even in smaller, peripheral places and the emergence of industries. | Qualitative: case study (10 expert interviews, reports) | Yamamura and Lassalle (2020) | ||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements are highly interdependent and form a complex system. | Quantitative: correlation, regression (QOG, GEM World Bank, ESS, RIS, RCI, EIB, CORDIS, Crunchbase, Eurostat, CB Insights, Dealroom) | Leendertse et al. (2022) | ||
| Connection of place (including institutions and structures) and people give rise to entrepreneurial ecosystem dynamics. | Qualitative: case study (33 semi-structured, in-depth interviews) | Daniel et al. (2022) | ||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystems’ trajectories are chaotic and the result of co-evolving sub-ecosystems through several sequences. | Qualitative: 23 semi-structured interviews, participatory observations, secondary data | Cloutier and Messeghem (2022) | ||
| National culture, market characteristics, available resources, and networks in an ecosystem spark ecosystem-specific narratives, which in turn shape tendencies towards effectuation and causation, respectively. | Qualitative: 43 interviews | Hubner et al. (2022) | ||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements are highly interdependent, and policies/support should focus on the bottlenecks. | Mixed: 25 expert interviews, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, cross-matrix analysis MICMAC | Aliabadi et al. (2022) | ||
| A dominant industry influences the development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem through various elements. | Mixed: 14 semi-structured interviews; descriptive statistics (336 survey responses) | Eichelberger et al. (2020) | ||
| Improving the weakest part of an entrepreneurial ecosystem at a local level requires unique approaches and different levels of resources but can have a large impact on entrepreneurial ecosystem performance. | Quantitative: index development (REDI, RIERC, HSO) | Szerb et al. (2022) | ||
| Dynamic interplay across intellectual capital enablers is critical for an entrepreneurial ecosystem to flourish and evolve adaptively. | Qualitative: participant observations, in-depth interviews, archival documents | Grande et al. (2022) | ||
| Governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems is an iterative process that relies on effective management of relationships, communication ties with local and national agendas and a shared collaborative culture. | Qualitative: policy document analysis, 31 semi-structured interviews, observational notes | Knox and Arshed (2022) | ||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystems contain a complex system of unique dimensions and interrelationships. | Mixed: eight expert interviews informed survey (100 responses), exploratory factor analyses | Stephens et al. (2022) | ||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystems are affected by and, in turn, affect the underlying competitive and regulatory dynamics that play out globally. | Mixed: historical event analysis | Bessagnet et al. (2021) | ||
| Ecosystem elements are complementary and stronger elements can compensate for weaker elements. | Qualitative: eleven interviews | Godley et al. (2021) | ||
| Anchor ñrms and institutions | Governance changes from hierarchical to relational as the ecosystem evolves; similarly, the role of different actors evolves with the ecosystem (including anchors who initiate and support the initial growth). | Mixed: case study (archives, 53 questionnaire responses, structured interviews, SNA) | Colombelli et al. (2019) | |
| Government and finance | Non-linear evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems, with often contradictory developments among constituent elements. | Qualitative: case study (22 semi-structured interviews supported by secondary data) | Radinger-Peter et al. (2018) | |
| Bottom-up evolution of ecosystems through individual interactions | (Informal) Institutions | Institutions are perceived differently by ecosystem actors and are constantly co-created through the interaction of these actors. | Qualitative: in-depth interviews, focus groups, secondary data | Lowe and Feldman (2017) |
| Informal institutions lead to “integration” whereas formal institutions and public policy can have “disintegrative” tendencies. | Qualitative: case study (27 semi-structured interviews) | Pocek (2022) | ||
| Multiple elements | Instead of isolated investments/actions, ecosystems are adaptive and evolve through interactions of individuals with different motivations (including non-market forces). | Qualitative: in-depth interviews, focus groups, secondary data | Feldman and Lowe (2018) | |
| Ecosystems form through endogenous, bottom-up, and time-patterned processes (rather than exogenous sources such as government action or instrumental policy goals). | Qualitative: 25 structured interviews, secondary data | Thompson et al. (2018) | ||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystems are complex adaptive systems that are based on heterogenous actors’ nonlinear interactions, adaptive evolutionary dynamics, and multiscale governance boundaries, while being sensitive to initial conditions. | Qualitative: case study (23 group interviews, six types of secondary data) | Han et al. (2021) | ||
| Technology-focused entrepreneurial ecosystems are interrelated systems composed of environmental conditions, support entities and functions, and tech entrepreneurs. | Qualitative: 37 in-depth, semi-structure interviews, secondary data | Maysami and Mohammadi Elyasi (2020) | ||
| Interaction between individual entrepreneurial talent/aptitudes and the ecosystem (place-based interactions). | Quantitative: Scale construction (semi-structured interviews, focus group), linear regression (1402 survey responses) | Pushkarskaya et al. (2020) | ||
| When an industry in a region matures and a cluster emerges, local generic entrepreneurial ecosystem service providers may be bypassed by their local entrepreneurs. | Quantitative: descriptive statistics (581 Internet IPOs) | Li et al. (2022) | ||
| Constant interchange between intellectual capital components (human, structural, and relational capital) occurs at the micro and the meso level. | Qualitative: case study (seven semi-structured interviews, email correspondence, meetings reports, 24 months of direct observation) | Marinelli et al. (2022) | ||
| Ecosystem evolution depends on both munificence (in the built environment) and the dynamism and behavioral responses of agents in the ecosystem. | Qualitative: two case studies (34 interviews, document analysis) | Johnson et al. (2019) | ||
| Networks | Gender issues can constrain the bottom-up evolution of ecosystems and women-only networks are not sufficient improve connectedness and engagement in entrepreneurial activities of women. | Qualitative: 28 in-depth interviews | McAdam et al. (2019) | |
| Different ecosystem configurations are required for high informal, formal, or external networking behaviour in the ICT sector. | Mixed: 29 interviews, fsQCA | Komlósi et al. (2022) | ||
| Coliving, coworking and coexperience support networking and communication among residents, entrepreneurs and tourists. | Qualitative: case study (17 guided interviews) | Thees et al. (2020) | ||
| Communities and interaction among entrepreneurial ecosystem actors provide support and resilience during crisis. | Quantitative: SEM (239 survey responses) | Kansheba et al. (2022) | ||
| Ecosystems enable the sharing and circulation of resources | Multiple | Entrepreneurial ecosystems facilitate resource circulation, mobilisation and allocation. | Qualitative: 51 semi-structured interviews, site visits, focus group, and secondary data | Shi and Shi (2021) |
| Social trust | Social trust facilitates the flow of information and knowledge exchange across entrepreneurial ecosystem actors and fosters knowledge spillovers. | Quantitative: multilevel models (Eurostat, ESS, REDI, QOG) | Corradini (2022) | |
| Ecosystems best describe regional/local dynamics | Multiple | Heterogeneity in the composition of entrepreneurial ecosystems across NUTS-3 regions and some spatial patterns would not be visible using larger spatial units. | Quantitative: spatial analysis, Theil index, regression (ISTAT, Movimprese, Bank of Italy) | Perugini (2022) |
| Main Arguments | Focus | Main Findings | Methodology | Selected Empirical Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual actors can increase connectivity and provide required resources (sometimes acting beyond their expected realm, particularly in less developed ecosystems) | Support organizations | Four types of accelerator expertise—connection, development, coordination, and selection—combined lead to higher commitment among stakeholders to the ecosystem, validation through faster experimentation and ecosystem additionality. | Qualitative: 54 interviews, secondary data | |
| Intermediary organizations in entrepreneurial ecosystems play a significant role in orchestrating collaborations beyond their regular realm. | Qualitative: case study (38 semi-structured interviews) | |||
| Incubators do not fundamentally address unfavorable institutions and only provide “symptomatic” solutions, therefore new “systemic” incubators are needed. | Qualitative: multiple case study (281 semi-structured interviews) | |||
| Through an open innovation approach, accelerators can support the connectedness within and beyond the ecosystem and increase the resources available within the ecosystem. | Qualitative: 19 semi-structured interviews, secondary data | |||
| Multiple elements | Elements are related in a unique way for every ecosystem. | Qualitative: 20 interviews, survey to develop genealogical model (184 responses) | ||
| Actors need to interact and reinforce each other to support the entrepreneurial ecosystem. | Quantitative: general LMM (based on 911 innovative start-ups) | |||
| Actors need to reach legitimacy across three complementary dimensions — institutional, cultural and relational — to make an impact within ecosystems. | Qualitative: longitudinal, in-depth case study | |||
| Role models and intermediary organizations are crucial for creating local buzz, promoting shared visions, and bridging cultural holes, which improves the flow of resources and information. | Quantitative: topic modelling (Twitter data) | |||
| Learning and change in entrepreneurial ecosystems are endogenous processes that involve all actors, not just central ones. | Qualitative: embedded case design (38 interviews) | |||
| In the absence of “traditional” factors, some actors (local “champions”) can create momentum and vitalise the entrepreneurial ecosystem. | Qualitative: case study (archival data) | |||
| Dealmakers are essential for fostering connectivity and knowledge spillovers in entrepreneurial ecosystems. | Quantitative: social network analysis (Capital IQ database) | |||
| Government | Government sponsorship is an effective driver of ecosystem development beyond increasing individual recipient firms’ performance. | Qualitative: 51 semi-structured interviews | ||
| Universities | Universities as hub institutions can support the development of ecosystems through the sequential development of boundary spanning, network building, and orchestrator functions, but rely on the development of complementary support structures. | Qualitative: case study (21 semi-structured interviews over 12 years, supplementary documents and information) | ||
| Learning, and universities pro-actively supporting this beyond their traditional remit, contribute to entrepreneurial ecosystem development. | Qualitative: case study (questionnaires, interviews, participatory and non-participatory observations, documentary evidence) | |||
| Universities adapt to the state of the ecosystem and contribute in multiple ways (often beyond their traditional remit of teaching and research). | Qualitative: multiple embedded case studies (participant observation, workshops, interviews, secondary data) | |||
| Anchor firms and institutions | Complex interdependencies mean that changes to anchor firms or institutions can alter the structure and resilience of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. | Qualitative: case study (two panel discussions and 13 in-depth semi-structured interviews) | ||
| Large/anchor firms can support ¢sub-)ecosystems through active engagement and governance without taking absolute control. | Qualitative: case study (43 semi-structured interviews, observations, document analysis) | |||
| MNEs, through spin-outs and spillovers, can shape the technological trajectory and evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. | Mixed: longitudinal mixed-method case study | |||
| Start-up competitions can act as anchor events by fostering local connections, but do not draw in high-profile or external investors. | Qualitative: comparative case study (45 interviews) | |||
| Key (institutional) actors within entrepreneurial ecosystems disproportionately contribute to the formation of networks, which are crucial to the iterative development of ecosystems. | Mixed: social network analysis (2232 Meetup events with 21,612 unique members), 23 semi-structured interviews | |||
| Entrepre-neurs | Family entrepreneurs’ embeddedness as a social fabric drives regional entrepreneurial ecosystem development. | Qualitative: exploratory case study (20 semi-structured interviews) | ||
| Successful start-ups (“lighthouses”) play an important role in shaping the cultural, social and material attributes of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. | Qualitative: multiple case stud (40 interviews) | |||
| Lifestyle entrepreneurs often act as mediators between the different actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems, namely local entrepreneurs, public sector agencies, financial bodies, local community leaders. | Qualitative: multiple case stud (8 interviews, secondary material) | |||
| Entrepreneurs working in the sharing economy shape the sustainability of an entrepreneurial ecosystem through building a supportive environment, disrupting normative standards, and reframing the sustainability paradigm. | Qualitative: 31 in-depth interviews | |||
| Feedback and (non-linear) co-evolutionary dynamics between ecosystem elements (and the wider socio-economic context) | Multiple elements | Entrepreneurial culture as well as tailored stakeholder support and collaboration lead reinforce the perception of the ecosystem. | Quantitative: OLS regression (106 survey respondents) | |
| Individual ecosystems are unique due to their co-evolving elements and historical, cultural, and institutional heritage. | Qualitative: Semi-structured interviews (23 and 122 at two points in time), archival data | |||
| Ecosystem configurations can vary significantly, and new policies/investments should develop support among underlying social and cultural attributes. | Qualitative: case study (71 semi-structured interviews) | |||
| Different forms of proximity allow for development of entrepreneurial ecosystem even in smaller, peripheral places and the emergence of industries. | Qualitative: case study (10 expert interviews, reports) | |||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements are highly interdependent and form a complex system. | Quantitative: correlation, regression (QOG, GEM World Bank, ESS, RIS, RCI, EIB, CORDIS, Crunchbase, Eurostat, CB Insights, Dealroom) | |||
| Connection of place (including institutions and structures) and people give rise to entrepreneurial ecosystem dynamics. | Qualitative: case study (33 semi-structured, in-depth interviews) | |||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystems’ trajectories are chaotic and the result of co-evolving sub-ecosystems through several sequences. | Qualitative: 23 semi-structured interviews, participatory observations, secondary data | |||
| National culture, market characteristics, available resources, and networks in an ecosystem spark ecosystem-specific narratives, which in turn shape tendencies towards effectuation and causation, respectively. | Qualitative: 43 interviews | |||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements are highly interdependent, and policies/support should focus on the bottlenecks. | Mixed: 25 expert interviews, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, cross-matrix analysis MICMAC | |||
| A dominant industry influences the development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem through various elements. | Mixed: 14 semi-structured interviews; descriptive statistics (336 survey responses) | |||
| Improving the weakest part of an entrepreneurial ecosystem at a local level requires unique approaches and different levels of resources but can have a large impact on entrepreneurial ecosystem performance. | Quantitative: index development (REDI, RIERC, HSO) | |||
| Dynamic interplay across intellectual capital enablers is critical for an entrepreneurial ecosystem to flourish and evolve adaptively. | Qualitative: participant observations, in-depth interviews, archival documents | |||
| Governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems is an iterative process that relies on effective management of relationships, communication ties with local and national agendas and a shared collaborative culture. | Qualitative: policy document analysis, 31 semi-structured interviews, observational notes | |||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystems contain a complex system of unique dimensions and interrelationships. | Mixed: eight expert interviews informed survey (100 responses), exploratory factor analyses | |||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystems are affected by and, in turn, affect the underlying competitive and regulatory dynamics that play out globally. | Mixed: historical event analysis | |||
| Ecosystem elements are complementary and stronger elements can compensate for weaker elements. | Qualitative: eleven interviews | |||
| Anchor ñrms and institutions | Governance changes from hierarchical to relational as the ecosystem evolves; similarly, the role of different actors evolves with the ecosystem (including anchors who initiate and support the initial growth). | Mixed: case study (archives, 53 questionnaire responses, structured interviews, SNA) | ||
| Government and finance | Non-linear evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems, with often contradictory developments among constituent elements. | Qualitative: case study (22 semi-structured interviews supported by secondary data) | ||
| Bottom-up evolution of ecosystems through individual interactions | (Informal) Institutions | Institutions are perceived differently by ecosystem actors and are constantly co-created through the interaction of these actors. | Qualitative: in-depth interviews, focus groups, secondary data | |
| Informal institutions lead to “integration” whereas formal institutions and public policy can have “disintegrative” tendencies. | Qualitative: case study (27 semi-structured interviews) | |||
| Multiple elements | Instead of isolated investments/actions, ecosystems are adaptive and evolve through interactions of individuals with different motivations (including non-market forces). | Qualitative: in-depth interviews, focus groups, secondary data | ||
| Ecosystems form through endogenous, bottom-up, and time-patterned processes (rather than exogenous sources such as government action or instrumental policy goals). | Qualitative: 25 structured interviews, secondary data | |||
| Entrepreneurial ecosystems are complex adaptive systems that are based on heterogenous actors’ nonlinear interactions, adaptive evolutionary dynamics, and multiscale governance boundaries, while being sensitive to initial conditions. | Qualitative: case study (23 group interviews, six types of secondary data) | |||
| Technology-focused entrepreneurial ecosystems are interrelated systems composed of environmental conditions, support entities and functions, and tech entrepreneurs. | Qualitative: 37 in-depth, semi-structure interviews, secondary data | |||
| Interaction between individual entrepreneurial talent/aptitudes and the ecosystem (place-based interactions). | Quantitative: Scale construction (semi-structured interviews, focus group), linear regression (1402 survey responses) | |||
| When an industry in a region matures and a cluster emerges, local generic entrepreneurial ecosystem service providers may be bypassed by their local entrepreneurs. | Quantitative: descriptive statistics (581 Internet IPOs) | |||
| Constant interchange between intellectual capital components (human, structural, and relational capital) occurs at the micro and the meso level. | Qualitative: case study (seven semi-structured interviews, email correspondence, meetings reports, 24 months of direct observation) | |||
| Ecosystem evolution depends on both munificence (in the built environment) and the dynamism and behavioral responses of agents in the ecosystem. | Qualitative: two case studies (34 interviews, document analysis) | |||
| Networks | Gender issues can constrain the bottom-up evolution of ecosystems and women-only networks are not sufficient improve connectedness and engagement in entrepreneurial activities of women. | Qualitative: 28 in-depth interviews | ||
| Different ecosystem configurations are required for high informal, formal, or external networking behaviour in the ICT sector. | Mixed: 29 interviews, fsQCA | |||
| Coliving, coworking and coexperience support networking and communication among residents, entrepreneurs and tourists. | Qualitative: case study (17 guided interviews) | |||
| Communities and interaction among entrepreneurial ecosystem actors provide support and resilience during crisis. | Quantitative: SEM (239 survey responses) | |||
| Ecosystems enable the sharing and circulation of resources | Multiple | Entrepreneurial ecosystems facilitate resource circulation, mobilisation and allocation. | Qualitative: 51 semi-structured interviews, site visits, focus group, and secondary data | |
| Social trust | Social trust facilitates the flow of information and knowledge exchange across entrepreneurial ecosystem actors and fosters knowledge spillovers. | Quantitative: multilevel models (Eurostat, ESS, REDI, QOG) | ||
| Ecosystems best describe regional/local dynamics | Multiple | Heterogeneity in the composition of entrepreneurial ecosystems across NUTS-3 regions and some spatial patterns would not be visible using larger spatial units. | Quantitative: spatial analysis, Theil index, regression (ISTAT, Movimprese, Bank of Italy) |
Note: *All studies in this list include a variety of ecosystem elements, but some emphasize the role of particular element(s) as indicated in this column.
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Please sign in to your personal account to gift article access.
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses.
You have reached the limit of 10 links within a 30 day period.
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.